G.R. No. 179918 | SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V.
v JALOS It is clear from this definition that the stress to marine life claimed by
September 8, 2010 | ABAD
TOPIC: Jurisdiction
SUMMARY: Shell constructed a pipeline which Jalos claims to have disrupted their
fishing life, for which he now claims damages with the RTC. Shell claims the RTC has
no jurisdiction, the case being a pollution case, within the jurisdiction of the PAB. The
Court ruled that it was indeed a pollution case within the jurisdiction of the PAB.
FACTS:
December 11, 1990 - Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. (Shell) and the
Republic of the Philippines entered into Service Contract 38 for the exploration and
extraction of petroleum in northwestern Palawan. Upon discovery of natural gas
commenced the construction and installation of a pipeline from Shells production
platform to its gas processing plant in Batangas.
May 19, 2003 - Efren Jalos, et al filed a complaint for damages against Shell
claiming that they were all subsistence fishermen whose livelihood was adversely
affected by the construction and operation of Shells natural gas pipeline (that they
were having a difficult time fishing because the construction disrupted the fish).
Instead of filing an answer, Shell moved for dismissal, alleging the lack of
jurisdiction over the action, as it is a pollution case under RA 3931, as amended by
PD 984 or the Pollution Control Law. Under these statutes, the Pollution Adjudication
Board (PAB) has primary jurisdiction over pollution cases and actions for related
damages.
Shell also claimed that it could not be sued pursuant to the doctrine of state
immunity without the States consent as it was acting as the government’s agent
under Service Contract 38.
March 24, 2004 - RTC dismissed the complaint. It ruled that the action was
actually pollution-related, although denominated as one for damages. The complaint
should thus be brought first before the PAB, the government agency vested with
jurisdiction over pollution-related cases.
Upon Certiorari to the CA, the CA reversed the RTC and ruled that the RTC
had jurisdiction over the action, that the action against Shell was based on a quasi-
delict (its construction of the pipeline).
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint is a pollution case that falls within the primary
jurisdiction of the PAB? Yes, the jurisdiction over the action belongs to the PAB.
RULING: The PAB has the power and expertise needed to determine such issues of
whether or not the operation of the pipeline negatively affected the coastal waters.
RATIO:
The Court found that although the complaint of Jalos, et al does not use the
word pollution in describing the cause of the alleged fish decline in the Mindoro Sea, it
is unmistakable based on their allegations that Shells pipeline produced some kind of
poison or emission that drove the fish away from the coastal areas.
To greatly affected biogenically hard-structured communities such as coral
reefs and led [to] stress to the marine life in the Mindoro Sea constitutes pollution as
defined by law.
Section 2(a) of P.D. 984 defines pollution as any alteration of the physical,
chemical and biological properties of any water x x x as will or is likely to
create or render such water x x x harmful, detrimental or injurious to public
health, safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utilization for
domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate
purposes.
Jalos, et al is caused by some kind of pollution emanating from Shells natural gas
pipeline.
The pipeline, they said, greatly affected or altered the natural habitat of fish
and affected the coastal waters natural function as fishing grounds. Inevitably, in
resolving Jalos, et al’s claim for damages, the proper tribunal must determine whether
or not the operation of the pipeline adversely altered the coastal waters properties
and negatively affected its life sustaining function. The power and expertise needed to
determine such issue lies with the PAB.
EO 192 transferred to the PAB the powers and functions of the National
Pollution and Control Commission provided in R.A. 3931, as amended by P.D. 984.
As such, the PAB is empowered to determine the location, magnitude,
extent, severity, causes and effects of water pollution.
Among its functions is to serve as arbitrator for the determination of
reparation, or restitution of the damages and losses resulting from pollution, having
the power to conduct hearings, impose penalties for violation of P.D. 984, and issue
writs of execution to enforce its orders and decisions. The PABs final decisions may
be reviewed by the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Jalos et al. had administrative recourse in the PAB before filing a complaint
with the RTC.
The laws creating the PAB and vesting it with powers are wise. The
definition of the term pollution itself connotes the need for specialized knowledge and
skills, technical and scientific, in determining the presence, the cause, and the effects
of pollution. These knowledge and skills are not within the competence of ordinary
courts. Consequently, resort must first be made to the PAB, which is the agency
possessed of expertise in determining pollution-related matters.
ON OTHER ISSUES:
Shell claims a failure to state Cause of Action but the Court ruled that there
is a CoA, that the construction may be the wrongful act which Jalos et al. based their
action upon.
Shell also claims state immunity, however the Court ruled that Shell did not
act as an agent of the government but a provider of services.
In sum, while the complaint in this case sufficiently alleges a cause of action, the
same must be filed with the PAB, which is the government agency tasked to
adjudicate pollution-related cases. Shell is not an agent of the State and may thus be
sued before that body for any damages caused by its operations. The parties may
appeal the PABs decision to the CA. But pending prior determination by the PAB,
courts cannot take cognizance of the complaint.
DISPOSITO:
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 82404 dated November 20, 2006. Respondent Efren
Jalos, et als complaint for damages against Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. in Civil
Case P-1818-03 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro is ordered DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling with the Pollution
Adjudication Board or PAB.